Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00343-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-16-2007 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Expert testimony - Conflict of interest - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Closing argument - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ., Concur Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-24-2006 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: Danny Jones was indicted by the grand jury of Jones County, Second Judicial District, for wilfully and feloniously killing Delores Knight, without authority of law, with malice aforethought and deliberate design to effect the death of Knight, by shooting her with a shotgun, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-3-19 (Rev. 2006). Jones was tried and convicted by a jury for Knight’s murder. The trial court sentenced Jones to serve a term of life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, to complete the 18th District Circuit Court’s Community Service Program if released before the full sentence is served, and to pay the court costs of $250.50. District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2001-265-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DANNY JONES |
RICHARD A. REHFELDT |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Murder - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Expert testimony - Conflict of interest - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Closing argument - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Danny Jones was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior bad acts Jones argues that the court erred in admitting testimony relating to several incidents involving Jones which were reported to the Jones County Sheriff Department on two earlier occasions. evidence or proof of a prior crime or bad act is admissible where it is necessary to show identity, knowledge, intent, motive or to prove science. Even where evidence of other crimes is admissible under M.R.E. 404(b), it cannot be admitted unless it also passes muster under M.R.E. 403. Here, the trial court allowed the evidence as to motive after concluding that the prejudicial effect of the testimony did not outweigh its probative value. The record does not demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony. Issue 2: Expert testimony Jones argues that the court erred in admitting testimony by the forensic pathologist concerning whether the gunshot wound was a distant gunshot wound or a contact wound and where the shot had originated. Jones’ failure to object at trial waived this claim of error on appeal. Issue 3: Conflict of interest Jones argues that the court erred in failing to remove the district attorney from the case since he was a public defender at the time Jones was appointed a public defender. Each case must be examined on its facts in order to determine the nature of the attorney's prior relationship with the accused and the substance of any communications between the attorney and the accused. The trial court found no conflict because there was no contact. The trial court further found that Jones never did or said anything to the public defender or any public defender that would rise to the level of any prejudice against him. The trial court did not err in finding that no conflict existed to merit the removal of the district attorney from this case. Issue 4: Circumstantial evidence instruction Jones argues that he was denied a circumstantial evidence instruction in his case. The record contradicts that assertion. The jury was instructed that Jones was presumed innocent, and every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt must be excluded in order to find Jones guilty. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jones argues that trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a circumstantial jury instruction, and for not requesting a limiting instruction on the prior bad acts. Since there was no error with regard to these two issues, counsel was not ineffective. Issue 6: Closing argument Jones argues that the prosecutor made improper remarks in the closing argument. The prosecutor’s remarks were invective and out-of-line. However, the defense’s statements invited the prosecutor’s response. The defense’s statements were an attack on the prosecutor, personally, in front of the jury. The defense’s statements also asked the jury to put themselves in the defense attorney’s place, to share a common heritage with the witnesses, and to accept that he would never as an attorney represent a guilty person. Both the prosecutor and the defense crossed the line in the closing arguments. But, the prosecutor’s remarks were sufficiently insignificant in the overall context of the case that any error was harmless. Issue 7: Weight of evidence The jury heard the testimony from all the State’s witnesses, including the defense’s cross-examination of those witnesses, and from the defense’s witnesses, including the State’s cross-examination of those witnesses. Here, no new trial is warranted, as the jury’s verdict is consistent with the weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
